GUE Tech vs. TDI Tech classes

[lamont]

I'm not qualified to debate that point, but in the context of DPF participation, barring any additional issues when was the last time a request to join was denied solely and routinely on grounds that taking fundamentals (a single course) was insufficient?

I'm just trying to get a sense of where the floor is. Someone who has never taken a class but was mentored in DIR? Someone who has taken at least two classes from a certain agency? Someone who has not yet taken any classes but had heard about and was interested in DIR (me when I joined DPF)?

The very objective criteria:
- take any GUE course (no pass necessary)
- take any UTD course (no pass necessary)

The only slightly more subjective/discretionary criteria:
- certain people on obvious historical grounds (e.g. dan volker and WKPP members)
- NAUI courses taught by AG (seems to be entirely replaced by UTD now)
- active posters in the DIR forum that have signed up for a fundies/essentials course (thats my discretion to bend the rules slightly for a month or two).

What isn't approved:
- interested in DIR (who can use the DIR forum to post)
- training with another agency by an instructor who had taken GUE courses

Since there's a personal approval process, people seem to think that its a judgment of how good they are as a diver or how good their personal training is. And it isn't. Its just an agency affiliation (or been involved historically in the genesis of those agencies). I wouldn't expect to be invited into the Inner Circle of any TDI, IANTD, NAUI-Tech, NACD, NSS-CDS, etc forums. I'm sure NAUI-Tech people don't need to hear me talk about how idiotic 30/17 is as a gas, over and over and over again (and the 30/30 vs. 25/25 naval gazing of GUE vs. UTD is quite enough for me).

 

[ScubaInChicago]

Lamont,
What's the DPF forum?

?? DIR Practitioners Forum, Forum ???

 

[amascuba]

The closest GUE instructor to Utah is probably Rob Calkins in CO although he can't teach tech1. For that it would be Beto in Cali.

He teaches his Technical courses through NAUI.

 

[rjack321]

I'm getting a lot of applications for the DPF forum where divers claim to be DIR trained because their NAUI or TDI instructor took DIRF or tech1 and "teaches DIR". There seems to be a trend here.

Its very odd to me that a student/customer would pay for and take a course and get a card from NAUI or TDI when their own instructor is no longer supporting those agency's programs and is hyping their "affiliation" with another agency without actually being an instructor for the other agency (GUE it seems, but I imagine UTD is just a matter of time).

I would not take a "TDI" course that had thrown out the TDI text and all of their expectations and handed me a GUE text, doesn't that seem a bit odd to people?? Its like buying a Ford that's not a Ford cause despite the nameplate its really supposed to be a Chevy? Weird.

If you want a "DIR course", take one from GUE or UTD, both have alot more credibility in this area than a one-off instructor who's taken a course or 2 (outside of TDI or NAUI I might add) but who's never done a proper "DIR" IDC and is issuing cards from another agency.

 

[Red Sea Shadow]

Its very odd to me that a student/customer would pay for and take a course and get a card from NAUI or TDI when their own instructor is no longer supporting those agency's programs and is hyping their "affiliation" with another agency without actually being an instructor for the other agency (GUE it seems, but I imagine UTD is just a matter of time).

I would not take a "TDI" course that had thrown out the TDI text and all of their expectations and handed me a GUE text, doesn't that seem a bit odd to people?? Its like buying a Ford that's not a Ford cause despite the nameplate its really supposed to be a Chevy? Weird.

If you want a "DIR course", take one from GUE or UTD, both have alot more credibility in this area than a one-off instructor who's taken a course or 2 (outside of TDI or NAUI I might add) but who's never done a proper "DIR" IDC and is issuing cards from another agency.

Of course you're right. But did these instructors taught the GUE curriculum then issued TDI cards? If it's only about the gear configuration, then they're not violating TDI standards, as TDI does not dictate a specific gear configuration.

On the other hand, the fact that the students think or believe they're DIR-trained isn't the instructors' problem.

 

[ScubaInChicago]

Of course you're right. But did these instructors taught the GUE curriculum then issued TDI cards? If it's only about the gear configuration, then they're not violating TDI standards, as TDI does not dictate a specific gear configuration.

On the other hand, the fact that the students think or believe they're DIR-trained isn't the instructors' problem.

I think it is 100% the instructors fault when the student walks away thinking they have taken the equivalent of a GUE/UTD class.....but haven't......

I personally feel as though UTD intentionally named their classes Tech 1 & 2 in order to undermine and and at the same time ride the coattails of GUE's Tech classes. Who's to know till one does the research to figure out what the differences are and how they are broken up.....

I guess it all comes down to marketing and giving a potential student a glimmer of information and claiming it's LIKE some other agencies teachings that some instructors drum up their own business.....

 

[TSandM]

I personally feel as though UTD intentionally named their classes Tech 1 & 2 in order to undermine and and at the same time ride the coattails of GUE's Tech classes. Who's to know till one does the research to figure out what the differences are and how they are broken up....

I think it's unfortunate that UTD named their classes the way they did, instead of Tech 1A and Tech 1B, or something else that would make the evaluation of equivalence easier. BUT -- if you are signing up for technical training, and you haven't made the simple effort to find out what the class you are taking involves, and what it certifies you to do, then you really aren't showing the kind of initiative you ought to have to take a class in technical diving.

When I took UTD Tech 1, I knew EXACTLY what it was -- what I would learn, and what I would be expected to be able to do at the end. I also knew it wasn't GUE Tech 1. And you know what? That's WHY I took it. I didn't WANT GUE Tech 1, because I was pretty sure I couldn't pass that class, and that taking a smaller bite out of tech training was a better path for me. There are people who feel that way, and people who'd rather do the whole five day marathon. I'm happy there are offerings for both kinds of people. What I did worked for me.

If you sign up to take a technical class from a GUE-trained TDI instructor, I think you can probably figure that your class will be influenced by the GUE training that the instructor had, but it will not be a GUE class. In some cases, that might be better for the individual student. In technical training, it ALWAYS comes down to the fit between the instructor's expectations and capacities and the student's expectations and abilities. And you know what? That's true with GUE classes, too. Not all of them are great experiences for the people who take them, if the instructor/student matchup isn't good.

 

[Red Sea Shadow]

I think it is 100% the instructors fault when the student walks away thinking they have taken the equivalent of a GUE/UTD class.....but haven't......

You're right, only if the instructors mentioned that it's DIR training.

An instructor might have, for instance, DIR gear preference and the students automatically thinks he's doing / they're receiving DIR training. Did the instructors mention it's DIR training? Did the students care to ask?

 

[ScubaInChicago]

You're right, only if the instructors mentioned that it's DIR training.

An instructor might have, for instance, DIR gear preference and the students automatically thinks he's doing / they're receiving DIR training. Did the instructors mention it's DIR training? Did the students care to ask?

Does a student know to ask at an entry level when they don't have full knowledge of the greater picture?

 

[ScubaInChicago]

I think it's unfortunate that UTD named their classes the way they did, instead of Tech 1A and Tech 1B, or something else that would make the evaluation of equivalence easier. BUT -- if you are signing up for technical training, and you haven't made the simple effort to find out what the class you are taking involves, and what it certifies you to do, then you really aren't showing the kind of initiative you ought to have to take a class in technical diving.

When I took UTD Tech 1, I knew EXACTLY what it was -- what I would learn, and what I would be expected to be able to do at the end. I also knew it wasn't GUE Tech 1. And you know what? That's WHY I took it. I didn't WANT GUE Tech 1, because I was pretty sure I couldn't pass that class, and that taking a smaller bite out of tech training was a better path for me. There are people who feel that way, and people who'd rather do the whole five day marathon. I'm happy there are offerings for both kinds of people. What I did worked for me.

If you sign up to take a technical class from a GUE-trained TDI instructor, I think you can probably figure that your class will be influenced by the GUE training that the instructor had, but it will not be a GUE class. In some cases, that might be better for the individual student. In technical training, it ALWAYS comes down to the fit between the instructor's expectations and capacities and the student's expectations and abilities. And you know what? That's true with GUE classes, too. Not all of them are great experiences for the people who take them, if the instructor/student matchup isn't good.

Lynne,

Please don't take it as a personal attack, I understand the concept around breaking the classes into smaller bite size pieces. I just don't agree that a two part class bearing the same names as another established agency is anything other than a marketing advantage. I also don't believe it's fair for someone who doesn't have the credentials to teach a TRUE DIR class to label it "DIR" for the sake of swaying students into their pocketbook.

At some point it will turn into disgruntled students who believe they have already met the "DIR" bar. Personally, I have a lot of respect for a not-for-profit agency who can honestly judge/grade on skill alone and not let the money influence a card at the end of a class.